{"id":201,"date":"2007-07-25T20:03:43","date_gmt":"2007-07-25T20:03:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2007\/07\/merrill_lynch_ordered_to_pay_1"},"modified":"2021-09-20T15:41:16","modified_gmt":"2021-09-20T20:41:16","slug":"merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias – But Will This Survive Appeal?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tA NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be fired after discovering his ethnicity. Merrill is currently defending a suit filed in court by another Iranian who has also accused the firm of discrimination.<\/p>\n

In an unusually lengthy decision, the securities arbitration panel awarded Fariborz Todd Zojaji $400,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages. The arbitrators explained that Merrill Lynch defamed Mr. Zojaji in a required exit disclosure form (Form U-5), which “destroyed claimant’s ability to become employed in the securities industry.”<\/p>\n

This language may cause the award to be undone, since it was recently determined that brokerage firms have total immunity for statements made in such disclosures. Yet, the standard for vacating arbitration awards is quite high and a court could let the decision stand if it determines the arbitrators could have decided the case for any other reason. It is also possible the arbitrators heard evidence that the derogatory statements made in the U-5 were stated orally or in writing elsewhere, thus not be protected by the privilege. <\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be fired after discovering his ethnicity. Merrill is currently defending a suit filed in court by another Iranian who has also accused the firm of discrimination. In an […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3798,3800],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arbitration","category-merrill-lynch"],"yoast_head":"\nMerrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias - But Will This Survive Appeal? — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 25, 2007<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be — July 25, 2007\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias - But Will This Survive Appeal? — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 25, 2007\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"A NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be — July 25, 2007\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias - But Will This Survive Appeal? — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 25, 2007","description":"A NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be — July 25, 2007","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias - But Will This Survive Appeal? — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 25, 2007","twitter_description":"A NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be — July 25, 2007","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias – But Will This Survive Appeal?","datePublished":"2007-07-25T20:03:43+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:41:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/"},"wordCount":519,"articleSection":["Arbitration","Merrill Lynch"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/","name":"Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias - But Will This Survive Appeal? — Investor Lawyers Blog — July 25, 2007","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-25T20:03:43+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:41:16+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"A NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be — July 25, 2007","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/merrill-lynch-ordered-to-pay-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias – But Will This Survive Appeal?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-3f","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20142,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201\/revisions\/20142"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}